I'm trying to invoke a bit of logic here.
The real reasons for the attack on Iraq have been proven to
be false.
This would imply that Bush did have a real hidden motive for
this invasion.
If this is the case we can assume that there is an underlying
political/economic motive that would benefit the US considerably.
(assuming Bush has the best interests of the US at heart, which
I do believe).
A substantial amount of money injected into the US economy would
save tens of thousands, possibly millions of peoples lives through
improved healthcare and living standards.
Emotional and ethical considerations aside (which is my main assumption here).
We could say that 911 could have potentially saved more lives in
the long run than it cost.
My question is purely hypothetical -
What would the worlds reaction be if we could prove that this was
the real rationale behind the events of 911?
What are the implications of governments minimising losses
by these type of strategies?
note - 911 is a real tragedy and I hope that this line of thinking
does not in any way distract from the losses and pain it has caused.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckFDR did it with Pearl Harbor and he was like a god when he was president (my grandfather told me that). So are you going to say that the 1200+ men who went down on the USS Arizona were pawns in FDR's game? Let us not forget about the other sailors who were killed, too. Maybe we shouldn't have entered the war in 1941 since it was a "sneak attack". The US entered the war under false premises. Should we have not entered the war after we were attacked then?
I find it strange that although people are now willing to admit that
the motives of war on Iraq have been proven to be false, the real
reasons for 9/11 seem to have dropped out of peoples minds.
If he was lying about Saddam, why not 9/11.
9/11 served Bush's interests in conducting this war and without such
an event the war could not and would not h ...[text shortened]... purposes
of conducting an illegal war, how would Americans and the worldwide
audience react?
Originally posted by slappy115I don't know the story, could you tell me a bit more first please?
FDR did it with Pearl Harbor and he was like a god when he was president (my grandfather told me that). So are you going to say that the 1200+ men who went down on the USS Arizona were pawns in FDR's game? Let us not forget about the other sailors who were killed, too. Maybe we shouldn't have entered the war in 1941 since it was a "sneak attack". The U ...[text shortened]... e war under false premises. Should we have not entered the war after we were attacked then?
Originally posted by Thequ1ckJapan was declaring war on the US via messages, 8 parts in total (I think but I'm not 100% sure). Pearl Harbor was bombed like an hour after we got the last part where Japan said they declared war on us. That is a load of crap. The Japanese people were not brought up to fight like that, a sneak attack. It was humiliating to them because of their culture. Yet FDR used that to enter WW 2, the god-like cripple. What history records and what really happened are slightly different.
I don't know the story, could you tell me a bit more first please?
Originally posted by slappy115Wow, didn't know that. Good analogy.
Japan was declaring war on the US via messages, 8 parts in total (I think but I'm not 100% sure). Pearl Harbor was bombed like an hour after we got the last part where Japan said they declared war on us. That is a load of crap. The Japanese people were not brought up to fight like that, a sneak attack. It was humiliating to them because of their cultur ...[text shortened]... 2, the god-like cripple. What history records and what really happened are slightly different.
I guess if a nation declares war then there is no choice, the war
is in effect, already in motion and pawns get sacrificed along the way
to minimise loss. That is the nature of war.
What we have with the WTC is different in respect that (again hypothetically
speaking), that war could have been avoided but instead an event may have
been used to justify an offensive. The US was, in this scenario, the perpetrator and aggressor.
Is it OK to sacrifice the lives of ones own country by initiating a war
on terror if the outcome saves considerably more lives than it costs?